Check Your Privilege!

[LetalisK]

44/100 and I'm a white straight male. Yeah, this test is pretty shitty. The statements are completely devoid of context and makes the whole thing pretty arbitrary. For example, "I have traveled internationally." Why, yes, I have. To Iraq. So privileged.

 

[wulf3n]

What are you implying here? That actual privileges (like being white or male) don't exist, and thus aren't a problem for those who don't have it?

No, what I'm implying is that said privileges aren't linked to being a white male. That said privileges can be held by non white males, and likewise often aren't held by white males.

Uhm I'm sure the privilege of being white is pretty linked to white males. White women obviously enjoy the same privilege, but anyone else does not. Hence the name. Of course they might or might not enjoy other privileges.

All rather trivial observations I'd say.

The problem here is the "white privilege" you speak of has nothing to do with being white and everything to do with being a part of the ethnic majority in their culture\society.

 

[LetalisK]

The opposite is true. Being fat has way more to do with what you eat than how much you eat of it. If you avoid animal products, than it really doesn't matter how much you eat, you won't get fat easily.
For example if you eat single small bag of chips everyday you'll gain weight and grow fat, but if you eat 7 pieces of fruit everyday you won't gain nearly as much weight.
Basically you'll shit out most of the stuff you eat. Not saying that veganism is healthy, but it's a way to loose weight. A vegetarian diet is much healthier though, and it too can help loose weight.

I don't think it's true that 155 calories(small bag of potato chips) > 721 calories(7 apples). Also, getting fat on either one of those items is not a foregone conclusion and is dependent on how much energy you're spending, but it's the chips that require far less extra movement to burn off. It's actually one of the biggest pitfalls with people dieting: they think they can go bat-shit insane on anything that came from a plant, the ground, or anything marketed as being diet/lite/healthy then wonder why they're actually gaining weight because they've been going overboard with the orange juice, nuts, chicken, and 9-grain whole wheat bread to fill the hole in their stomach. At least in America, what we eat is bad, but we are far and away worse with the quantity we eat. Not to mention reducing quantity of what we eat is easier to accomplish and stick with than completely shifting what we eat(best option being to do a bit of both).

Not to say a vegetarian diet isn't usually healthier than the typical diet. It is, but it's because a vegetarian diet has a lot more built-in and natural portion control than the high-carb, high-fat, low-fiber diets most people have[footnote]I.E. It's a lot harder to eat 7 apples in a day than one bag of chips as even one apple is going to be more filling in the long-term than one bag of chips.[/footnote]. Now, if you said someone with all-you-can-eat chips will gain more weight than someone with all-you-can-eat apples, I'd agree 100%.

 

[CloudAtlas]

The problem here is the "white privilege" you speak of has nothing to do with being white and everything to do with being a part of the ethnic majority in their culture\society.

I'd wager that being white in places where whites are the ethnic minority, or form no significant share of the population whatsoever, is generally not worse than not being white in predominantly white countries. To make a statement with a reasonable degree of certainty here seems difficult though, since being white tends to coincide with privileges in the economic sphere. So whether you're generally doing relatively okay because you're white or because you're relatively wealthy... because you're white, this question might be a bit tricky to disentangle.

I mean, most (all?) countries with a significant white minority are nations with a colonial past. Whites there probably enjoy more privilege than anywhere else even though they're not the majority. Maybe not because they're white, but because they're wealthy... again, which they became because they came from Europe and were hence white.
But I mean, I'm open to actual evidence, so if you can point to really relevant cases where whites don't have it rather well in any countries where they're at most a minority, go ahead. From the top of my head, I can recall not that much.

Anyway, that seems to be mostly semantics to me. Most of us here will be from the West, and here the majority is white, so whether we enjoy "white privilege" or "ethnic majority privilege" doesn't really change anything, in particular not for those who are not white and thus not in the ethnic majority and thus do not enjoy this privilege... or does it?
But since you acknowledge the existence of a ethnicity-based privilege, that is, the very same thing quite a few people deny, we're pretty much sitting in the same boat on the broader issue. Or not?

 

[ThreeName]

What you have to understand is that the zero score isn't really rock-bottom.

It's rock-bottom among those who have access to a computer, the internet and possess the free time and basic knowledge required to fill in an online privilege test. That pretty much already puts you in the top 10% of this world, a sandstone castle wouldn't necessarily disqualify you from being in the bottom half of that top 10%.

Very well, I'm a white, middle-class, heterosexual, Christian male living in a huge sandstone castle.

I don't see how getting raped or having a poor body image somehow robs you of privilege, that concept is just too fucked up. Isn't privilege meant to be related to status? It shouldn't change based upon events like that, it's just fucking stupid.

By including the possible pitfalls of being part of the "non-privileged" groups, they've totally fucked it up. For example, I have been insulted plenty for being Christian, but being Christian is still a privilege because it makes up the historical and cultural roots of my country (post-colonisation, of course).

Captcha: "Roll again" no thanks, I think I just established my roll this time was pretty darn good.

 

[Someone Depressing]

...42?

I live near my grandparents/people who tolerate me and/or have lots of money, I have a job, live in a house (I split the bills with someone, though) and although a lot of my life had simply been figuring out who the hell I am, I wouldn't say it's caused me that much of a crisis that I'm unprivelaged.

I am white and mostly hetereosexual, though. And I was honest with the questions.

Either it's a load of bull or everything around me is a hopeless, Stepford-esque facade.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

22/100 Underprivileged. Yet I'm still indifferent to the "injustices" surrounding me. I don't care for these surveys because I'm a firm believer in playing the hand you're dealt and making your own opportunities. Fuck how other people perceive you for extraneous bullshit, your own self-worth and perception is more valuable than other folk's opinion of you and showcasing your fortitude and value are important. In other words if you demonstrate your worth and someone judges you on your skin or gender or orientation, who the fuck cares? Go somewhere where you'll be appreciated and suffer not the ignorance of fools.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Privilege doesn't mean anything for how good your life is. Poor people can be miserable, rich people can be miserable, there's no correlation.

Uh, there's a pretty big correlation. A person is a lot more likely to be unhappy if they're dying of cancer and can't pay for treatment, or if they and their children are starving. Misery through chemical imbalance can affect anyone yes. And millionaires feeling bad about "relative poverty" compared to their neighbors happens. But to say that there's no difference in the likelihood of happiness between people who can't afford basic necessities like food and shelter and those who enjoy all the luxuries and material security in life is absurd.

So goes the rumor, but have you ever gone without basic necessities? Try it for a few days. You'll be surprised. You may even find yourself happier than before, like Buddha Gautama did.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Privilege doesn't mean anything for how good your life is. Poor people can be miserable, rich people can be miserable, there's no correlation.

There is a significant correlation - otherwise the privilege would be nonexistent - but this correlation is not perfect. Privilege of any kind only increases the likelihood of you having a good life, but this likelihood is not equal to 100%, i.e. you are not garanteed to have a good life.
I think/hope that that's what you meant. And that's what many people who believe privilege doesn't exist don't seem to understand. They don't realize that claiming that their life sucking even though they're white/straigh/male/etc disproves the existence of privilege is about as legit as some dude claiming that because he's shorter than most of the women he knows, women would be on average taller then men...

... indeed a "very doubtful" proposition, to cite my captcha.

What's missing in this equation is a definition of "a good life". What does that mean? Are we talking about a set list of criteria to impose, or the subject's view of their own life? Can you go through your life without realising that your life "sucked"? What if someone tells me my life is good and I disagree?

 

[The Lunatic]

So goes the rumor, but have you ever gone without basic necessities? Try it for a few days. You'll be surprised. You may even find yourself happier, like Buddha Gautama did.

But, according to this survey, being fat is "Underprivileged" too, so, technically, you could just do both and attain equal levels of privilege.

 

[Headsprouter]

68/100. Yup. Seems about right. Although, the religion area was a toughie.

 

[Talshere]

I immediately feel like this is a broken quiz.

#1 Are you white. Congratulations, ignoring all the other things Im about to ask you that usually coincide with racial discrimination, you immediately get one point. What, no thats not how this works. You immediately ask me if Ive ever been discriminated because of my skin colour. What if I answer yes to that (I personally have not but my mother has and she is white. An Indian store in Southhall, UK, tried to charge her extra until her Indian friend read them the riot act).

You cant just assigned me a flat value because Im white. Same for being a man. Qualitative questions about things typically sexual discrimination things yes. But just flat being a man. No. Its 2014. Come on. Many of the 20 somethings may never have a problem with sexual discrimination. No I dont earn more than my female counterparts and yes I have been catcalled. So why is this quiz penalizing me for being male.



I also think this is also tailored to the US. We dont have taxes here the same way. My tax is auto calculated and taken monthly. Work provides all relavant details to HMRC. Ive been called a fag, youd be hard pressed to find a British kid who hasnt. This was before anyone in my age group could have possibly know what it ment. Ive also been called a fairy. Again, if it was designed as a sexual insult then the context was way off. Something here can be airy fairy and not be a gay insult. I also have long hair (I am male). I have had people ask to touch it... I fail to see what this has to do with my being privileged or discriminated against. Im also not comfortable with overt PDA. This is principally a social upbringing thing. Its well studied. Nothing to do with privilege. I have no religion, the ostracised by religion question cannot be answered truthfully. Left blank or ticked. I cant have been thrown out of nor accepted by something Ive never had. I also feel the international travel one is weird as a Brit... France and Holland are right there. You can take a weekend in Amsterdam for £75. I had to google Sallie Mae but we have the goverment backed Student Loans Company here so....6 of one. Afford medication... Go Go free medical care. NHS I love you.

I digress.

48 out of 100.

You?re not privileged at all. You grew up with an intersectional, complicated identity, and life never let you forget it. You?ve had your fair share of struggles, and you?ve worked hard to overcome them. We do not live in an ideal world and you had to learn that the hard way. It is not your responsibility to educate those with more advantages than you, but if you decide you want to, go ahead and send them this quiz. Hopefully it will help.

I disagree with the bit in bold.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

31%
Silly quiz was silly.

 

[viscomica]

I've scored 81/100 How did that happen? Oh well, cool, I suppose!
The quizz lacks a box: "I speak more than two languages"

 

[Weaver]

What if I've never heard the term ?You have been randomly selected for secondary passport control.? because I haven't been in an American airport since they went fucking crazy?

Also, I'm not American and a few of those questions were very obviously written assuming all student debt is $250,000.

You live with 42 out of 100 points of privilege.
You?re not privileged at all.
You're not privileged at all. You grew up with an intersectional, complicated identity, and life never let you forget it.

Uh, no I didn't. I just grew up poor and went to a shit school full of drugs. I had no identity complications and it's not up to "life to make me forget it" it's up to me to make me forget it you dickface survey.

I mean I don't know what I expected from a buzzfeed article but according to their question selection you could be a white cis quadriplegic in a nursing home and you'd score super privileged compared to a 22 year old furry who has some student loans.

 

[Ratty]

Privilege doesn't mean anything for how good your life is. Poor people can be miserable, rich people can be miserable, there's no correlation.

Uh, there's a pretty big correlation. A person is a lot more likely to be unhappy if they're dying of cancer and can't pay for treatment, or if they and their children are starving. Misery through chemical imbalance can affect anyone yes. And millionaires feeling bad about "relative poverty" compared to their neighbors happens. But to say that there's no difference in the likelihood of happiness between people who can't afford basic necessities like food and shelter and those who enjoy all the luxuries and material security in life is absurd.

So goes the rumor, but have you ever gone without basic necessities? Try it for a few days. You'll be surprised. You may even find yourself happier than before, like Buddha Gautama did.

I have gone without what most in the US would consider basic necessities before. Living without electricity in the dead of winter in a drafty house with poor insulation while it's below 18 degrees is not fun. Cooking food on a kerosine heater isn't fun. Not having running water (much less air conditioning) in sweltering summer heat isn't fun. And not being able to afford health insurance in case you get sick sucks.

I am familiar with the teachings of the Buddha and I respect them. But I could never follow them. I'm not an ascetic, I'm closer to a hedonist. I think it's a terrible waste to go through the only life you're going to have denying yourself all desire and pleasure so it won't hurt when painful things happen. Which is an oversimplification, but basically what the Buddha taught when you strip away later supernatural additions put in place to "religify" his message.

 

[The Lunatic]

22 year old furry who has some student loans.

I scored quite highly, actually.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

39 out of 100, white American heterosexual male who grew up wealthy. Now, granted, this is a Buzzfeed quiz, so one shouldn't be taking it too seriously in the first place, but it shows just how arbitrary and absurd the idea of 'privilege' is, since it can't really be quantified or measured.

Additionally, some of the questions are sort of bizarre:
-'Have you traveled internationally?" If you live on the border of Mexico or Canada, you can easily "travel internationally". That doesn't make you rich or privileged.
-"I have never had an addiction". So not doing drugs is a privilege?
-"I have never felt overweight or underweight or ?too skinny." Professional athletes sometimes think they are over or under weight, that doesn't make them less privileged.
-"I work in a salaried job". I've worked both salaried and by-the-hour jobs, and I'd take a by-the-hour job over a salaried job any day of the week. Salaried job usually just translates to "now we can make you work overtime and don't have to pay you extra"

 

[Ratty]

You'll be happy to know then that the Buddha, after spending some time as an ascetic, realized that being an ascetic is fucking stupid and began advocating a more moderate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_way] approach to life. Buddhists are supposed to strive for detaching themselves from this world through meditation and the acquisition of merit (basically doing good deeds), not by starving themselves and dying prematurely.

Yeah I already knew all of that that, I took a few classes on Buddhism in school. His philosophy was very distinct from Jainism. I was using ascetic for the sake of brevity, just like I oversimplified his message. Which is as I said essentially to deny yourself ("detach yourself from") all desire and pleasure in order to decrease your "dukkha", which is basically another word for suffering. i.e. "I'm sad my friend died but that is only because of my desire that he/she was still alive. I must break away from this desire to decrease my dukkha." "I'm sad I don't have a significant other but that's because I desire one."

Most people who identify as Buddhists just try to accumulate good deeds and hope for a better reincarnation yes, but that's because of later reinterpretations, alterations and additions to the Buddha's teachings. The Buddha Gautama did not apparently concentrate on the possibilities of the afterlife or supernatural, because such things are superfluous (and therefore concentrating on them is harmful) to the quest for the cessation of dukkha.

But far from worrying about reincarnation the original "advanced" teachings of the Buddha state that we don't even exist. At least not in the sense that we think we do. A person is merely a series of related events. You're not the same person you were when you were a child, you're not even the same person from second to second. We now know this is technically true in a literal, microscopic sense. A person is likened to a flame, the same but not the same from second to second. Nirvana literally means "blown out" like a fire, because you are trying to free yourself from the illusion of your existence, desire and dukkha are the fuel for that flame. You have desires because you wish for stability in a constantly changing world because you want to convince yourself you exist as a single, stable being when you don't.

A lot of Buddhists (probably most) would vehemently disagree with me and say that the supernatural elements are crucial. And that's ok, it's to be expected with any interpretations or questions about religious doctrine. But said supernatural elements (or at least the emphasis on them) are apparently later inventions and counter to the core message of Gautama's philosophy.